I like Gingrich, he's a lot smarter than some people credit. Time has a short Q and A with him on the upcoming election and I think he's accurate in his assessment.
Well, you can't be a conservative Republican majority that behaves like it's in Washington.
The Republicans came to power like outsides with a plan for reform. Over time, they have become as much a part of the problem which is an inside the beltway mentality as the Democrats.
That problem is inherent in our system today because government is populated by career politicians. The pols have no choice but to stay in Washington. There's no career path for them other than that. God forbid they go back to the private sector where they would have to work for a living. Eventually, I'd like to see term limits come back on the table, certainly I would prefer that to losing control to the Democrats.
I'm beginning to think that the Republicans are in far more trouble than I thought just a month ago. And they can only get away with blaming it on the media so long. My main issue with Bush has always been on spending. The Congress and the President we elected for smaller government have given us larger government with the same ineffectiveness and I think people are growing tired of kicking back to Washington when it's always such diminishing returns.
If the Republicans are in a spot where they have to manipulate the population with complex issues like immigration and the ongoing war on terror, they might be headed for a big surprise come November. I'm not looking forward to it if it happens. But they have brought it on themselves.
Immigration?
Who is going to care about immigration come election time? (who is really watching the issue now?)
how about a single 6 year term for a pres rather than 2 four year terms?
How effective if the pres during year 4?
It would be cheaper too and it would cut down on the year long political pandering, lies, and garbage that we have to listen to and put up with prior to each election.
Posted by: tester | Tuesday, March 28, 2006 at 09:20 AM
As a fiscal conservative, I'll just say the Bush administration has been acting worse than tax and spend liberals... we have cut taxes and spend Republicans in office. The Republicans without a doubt have to get their act together. I see nothing but pork, pork, corruption, and more pork. They are bankrupting this country's future and the bill will come due sooner than anybody wants to think.
Posted by: Mr. K. | Tuesday, March 28, 2006 at 09:35 AM
Yes I agree with you Mr. K. it is irresponsible, and i'm afraid the young generation starting out to work these days will get that bill. It's also worrysome, that besides the financial disaster, the USA start to lack in other areas, as health research, science, education. I really hope this can be reversed soon.
Posted by: mylena | Tuesday, March 28, 2006 at 09:44 AM
Bush is no republican or at least in the traditional sense. Blame also falls on the senate and congress too.
Oil is the worst shit in the world.
From my prespective, the decline of the USA technological lead started (was initiated) under Reagan. Since then, we really have not invested in technology, so don't expect a payoff.
We are in a real pickle. China and India are going to eat our lunch.
Posted by: tester | Tuesday, March 28, 2006 at 10:07 AM
The concept of 'small government' to me means less-intrusive government as opposed to the growing police-state. Maybe it's because I served in the military and most of you have not; but I am simply unwilling to piss all over the US Constitution and give up my God-given rights and liberties just becuase you frightened bunny-rabbits are scared of some wild-eyed moron who shits in a cave in Afganistan.
When I hear 'conservatives' make statements like "the Constitution isn't a suicide-pact" I know that they have ceased to be conservatives and have become police-state apologists.
=========================
Posted by: Sgt. York | Tuesday, March 28, 2006 at 01:26 PM
"My main issue with Bush has always been on spending. The Congress and the President we elected for smaller government have given us larger government with the same ineffectiveness and I think people are growing tired of kicking back to Washington when it's always such diminishing returns."
yes he spends to much and we don't have a smaller government. but, the spending is mainly from old programs that haven't been cut, new is defense (911 & war stuff) and the prescription drug deal. could have been better, could have been much worse with a democrat (imo). the good news affected me was the tax cuts. my boss expanded, i'm making more. all my friends have jobs, own homes, and are making more money. i dunno, but in the year after 911 i never ever thought i would be in this good of shape.
Posted by: kate | Tuesday, March 28, 2006 at 05:48 PM
kate: there has never been so much deficit as now ... that really has NOTHING to do with old stuff (there was a SURPLUS) when pres Bush started. Yes for now everything is fine, until it will fall, people are borrowing way too much, borrowing on 1, 3, 5 years, if houseprices fall, the interests rates go up (which they do) people will not be able to pay their mortgages. It's just superficial.
Posted by: mylena | Tuesday, March 28, 2006 at 06:55 PM
yes mylena. but, just for example's sake: is borrowing at say 6% interest so bad if you are making 12% interest(i know that's not exact and rather sophomoric, but you can catch my point). i don't like the deficit either, but i don't know that i buy into the dome and gloom.
Posted by: kate | Wednesday, March 29, 2006 at 01:53 AM
Bush is no republican or at least in the traditional sense
tester
==============
Well, I'll tell you this. The Democrats sure aren't claiming him!
From my vantage point, this administration has sent the US down the mountain and it will be very difficult and a long time to try and recover from the damage.
Posted by: shonane | Wednesday, March 29, 2006 at 02:35 AM
I dunno, but I'm concerned that we will be in a world of trouble if the housing market tanks.
I'd bet a taco that the next pres seeks to raise taxes.
Posted by: tester | Wednesday, March 29, 2006 at 10:32 AM
Kate, the problem it won't hold up, it never does (look in the past), if the housemarket tanks, just an example of kids of friends who have a way a mortgage, for 5 years for 4% when that rate will go up in 2 years from now, they will not be able to pay the montly payments, their montly payments will at least go up by 50-60 %. So they will have to sell their house, if a lot of people need to do that, the market tanks.
Also where do you make 12% on ? Houses have been pretty stable lately. Houses are way longer on the market today, it isn't at all that rosy.
Posted by: mylena | Wednesday, March 29, 2006 at 08:42 PM
well there is a hugh deficit. someone has to pay for that ..... there are a huge amount of babyboomers to retire ..... they will not pay it....
Posted by: mylena | Wednesday, March 29, 2006 at 08:44 PM
Kate, i'm not sure how old you are ofcourse, my situation is pretty good, but i worry yes for people who are starting out, i don't think they see it coming, they have never had to deal with tough (financial) situations yet ....
Posted by: mylena | Wednesday, March 29, 2006 at 08:46 PM